Divorcing equality

Let's say a newspaper writes a beat up story about a flat advert about a household asking for heterosexual people not to apply.  The article subtly ridicules all the ways the flatmates self-described themselves through the liberal use of quote marks:

It was for a four-bedroom house in the suburb of Newtown, which the existing flatmates described as a "queer, transgender, vegetarian household".
They described themselves as two "feminist/politically switched on adults"......

The Human Rights Commission gets the chance to respond.  It's not unreasonable to expect they might raise the persistent discrimination sexuality and gender diverse people experience in housing.  Like the facts around how vulnerable our young people are, when families reject our sexual or gender identity, and we have to find housing before we're actually ready to be independent.  Or the complete lack of safety for anyone who isn't a cis man in our homeless shelters - we have too few options for homeless women, queer or not, and no options for people who don't fit gender norms/are non-binary. 

Or what happens to us when we rock up to apply for a flat, and the person renting it realises we are not straight, or we are trans, and suddenly the room or house isn't available anymore.  Add being Maori or from any visible ethnic minority to that and you've got an even smaller pool to choose from.

Or what about when we find a flat, and it's ok, they even know we're queer - but then we get a similar gender lover, and suddenly people don't actually talk to us properly anymore? 

These are all overtish - rarely will we be told any of this is about being queer or trans or brown - but we know.  There's also all the covert stuff when you live with homophobic, biphobic or transphobic people.  The inability to have ordinary conversations about your experiences, because those people don't want to hear or don't understand or when you try talking, they are glazed over, bored, because it's not their experience and they don't really care.  The failure to acknowledge significant pain points, like the way your family treat you at Christmas or the hoops you have to jump through to get the hormones or medication you need to be recognised as who you are.

See, I EXPECT our Human Rights Commission to have heard those stories, because they monitor discrimination in this country.  They held a Transgender Inquiry in 2008 which said about housing:

"The Inquiry heard that finding a home was not always easy for trans people.  Those who transitioned as young adults were usually dependent on shared rental accomodation, particularly in flatting situations.  Social marginalisation and negative attitudes towards transpeople affects access to shared accomodation.  A trans woman told of being offered a room in a flat but was later turned away when the other tenants realised she was trans.  One trans man described the stress of boarding in a large house where flatmates continually harassed him by referring to him as "she"."

But instead the Human Rights Commission gave a weak waffling response about how we didn't want to live in a country with prejudice, whether that was saying "No straight people" or "No gay people".

The fact the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION doesn't understand structural discrimination is terrifying.  Because guess what - straight people can live everywhere else in the whole world almost - the fact that a couple of queer trans peeps in the lovely suburb of Newtown want to feel safe at home doesn't restrict straight people's housing options.

It kind of gets worse, with once again, our more mainstream Rainbow community organisations not knowing how to deal with talking about marginalisation, safety and discrimination.  There is no story here apart from the fact that queer and trans people must have the right, in an incredibly discriminatory housing context in Aotearoa New Zealand, to develop homes which feel safe for us.  And the Human Rights Commission and every single Rainbow organisation commenting on this should be saying that.

Because home is where we go to recover from the world.  It's where we most need to feel safe, to feel seen, to know how we are is just fine.  It's where, if we're talking psychologically, we need to be able to sleep without fear and rest from how we are treated on the streets, at work, in study, whenever we try to access anything we need.  All of those experiences can be more difficult for trans and queer people.

Marriage equality has dulled our senses, drugged our supposed protections, shifted the focus from most queer and trans people's experiences - particularly those of us who are poor, not white, disabled and/or less able or have less desire to fit in.  Expect no less than rage from those of us who never wanted to get married in the first place - it's time for the Rainbow community to divorce this unhealthy relationship with "equality" and start dating around.

Labour leadership: Too many irrelevant judgements

1.  Why is it only the people who aren't straight white men who have a judgement based on something about their identity, something they can't change?

2.  To take the awful ones in order:

• "Too gay" -  his sexuality is far from the only thing about Grant Robertson.  If this is a reference to the purported concern that New Zealand won't vote for someone who isn't openly heterosexual to be Prime Minister, then the problem is not that Grant is "too gay" but that NZ is too homophobic.  What does "too gay" even mean?  
• "Too passed it" - nice to mix up the sexism and homophobia with a bit of ageism.  And shouldn't it be "past it"?
• "Too many teeth" - because we all know that the most important thing about a woman is her appearance.  ARGH!  

3.  King, Ardern and Mallard have not even expressed any interest in running for the leadership.  Yet they get used to portray Labour as more divided than it actually is (which is, it seems, somewhat divided, but not so divided as to actually have 9 different candidates for leader)

4.  Why not Minnie Mouse? ;-)

Guestie: We are all human beings that live on the exact same planet

This guest post has been submitted and written by an Auckland high school student, chelsea_makita.  She wrote it for a short essay for school and was encouraged to seek a wider audience for it by her teacher.

Why is it that people who are gay get treated differently? Well I think this is simply because of the fact that people don't understand how much they may be in love with a person. Whether it is someone with the same gender as yourself or different, everyone should be treated fairly and equally. From my point of view,  there is no difference. We are all human beings that live on the exact same planet. I think that people who are glad to be different are the ones that make our world, a proud and beautiful place to be.

Many people don't understand why some people are gay. They’re happy being who they are. They find it hilarious when two people with the same gender walk past holding hands. Do they really find it funny? or is it that they’re just trying to put people down? To be honest, it’s none of their business what is going on through other people’s lives.

This subject is a bit like racism, except it’s not based on coloured skin. People who have dark skin or light skin were born that way. It was god’s gift for them. Yes, they may not look the same, but who cares? The main thing is that they’re happy for who they are and where they come from. I don't think it’s fair that human beings who are different are treated the way they are.

Just imagine, if you were in their shoes, how would you feel getting called names? Don't forget that they have feelings too. Recently, one of my friend’s cousins committed suicide because she was getting bullied for going out with a person who walked like a girl, talked like a girl and even looked like one. I think if you're proud of your relationship and the person you are with, then there’s no reason to be ashamed of who you are.

We human beings are all the same. We choose who we want to be. Just because some people make choices that you may think is weird, that doesn't give you the right to act like a total bully towards them. Finally, I am proud to say that I stand up for people who are gay.

Off with their benefits

I have to admit to falling prey to despair in the face of the latest example of incredible idiocy from those in charge of what is ironically known as "welfare". This month a blanket regime for "jobless" beneficiaries (including the ones already working extremely hard looking after people who have to be looked after) came into force.

Now we're seeing exactly how stupid this regime is. Grandparents - especially grandmothers - who have stepped in to take care of children bereft of their parents' care through death, illness or dereliction are being hounded to enrol in jobseeker courses, work out their "long-term career goals" and hunt for non-existent jobs. NO job could be more important or useful not just to their grandkids but to the rest of us as well, or save taxpayers more money, than the job they're currently doing - and for which they have in many cases already sacrificed their own earnings and any prospect of retirement.

But none of that seems to mean anything to those running the new regime. Today's Dominion Post reported.on the case of Denise Herman of Dannevirke, who has "single-handedly raised three of her grandchildren, and another foster daughter, for more than a decade." 

"Along the way, she has sacrificed her business, relationship and house to keep them out of foster care. She rescued her grandchildren from their parents after a Child, Youth and Family intervention. She said the parents struggled with drug addiction and spent time in prison. 'Without me, the kids would have been in foster care.'She has been able to care for them with the help of the domestic purposes and unsupported child benefits. She describes it as a fulltime occupation. On Monday, she will turn 64, and in a year she will be eligible for superannuation.But that has not stopped Work and Income telling her last month that she needed to look for a job or face having her support cut. She was enrolled in a six-month job-training course and asked to describe her skills, the last school she attended and her long-term career goals.'My long-term goal is to finally have some peace and rest,' she said. 'What a waste of money paying some training provider.'The Ministry of Social Development would not comment without a privacy waiver, which could not be obtained before publication."

This is pure lunacy, the work of a one-eyed concentration on just one thing: forcing down benefit numbers, regardless of the consequences. And because women are so much more likely than men to be on a benefit not because they are not working, but because they are doing vital unpaid work, it's likely to be women who get caught in this crazy catch-22 merry-go-round masquerading as social policy. 

Grandparents are not the only victims, they're just the most obvious example of a never generous but once more-or-less effective system of support that has been deliberately broken, and then broken again. I wonder if they're already hounding widowed Pike River mothers out to work too.

When census forms don't fit, it's time to double the tick

A friend and I were talking about what gender diversity would look like on a form recently, because she was having to design something to collect data for work.  The last couple of times I've been developing forms, I've created a "Gender" category and left it open for people to self-identify.

But I'm not collecting data about four million people, like Statistics New Zealand in the census, so the diverse responses I get (from female to intersex to ftm to sometimes to yes to genderqueer to mtf to male) can be managed.  I recognise Stats NZ probably need to find "categories."  I just don't recognise that those categories need to be limited to "Male" and "Female."

Which is why the campaign for two ticks is important.  Unless this issue is publicised - nope, those two labels don't meet all of our gender diverse needs - Stats NZ are unlikely to change their thinking.

I identify as and love being a cis woman.  But I'll be ticking both gender boxes this census, to show solidarity with people who are unrepresented by our current gender options.  As the Facebook campaign page makes clear, this is a broader issue:

If Statistics New Zealand expands its understanding of gender and officially recognises genders outside of the male/female binary, institutions all over Aotearoa will be able to do the same.
Currently institutions are prevented from recognising gender diversity because they have to provide information consistent with Statistics New Zealand's requirements.

Get your ticks on next Tuesday if you agree. 

There is no depression in New Zealand

There's a lot of talk at the moment about mental illness, and particularly about assumptions made that really bad things (like mass shootings) are carried out by people with mental illnesses.  I was part of such a discussion today, and I paused a bit, then told the small group discussing it that I have a mental illness.

I explained, after an awkward silence, that I take medication every day for depression, because I seem to have a chemical imbalance in my brain*, much in the same way that I take medication every day for asthma, because I seem to have chronic inflammation in my bronchioles.  I see a counsellor once a month to help me with tools to build my mental fitness, in much the same way that others might go to a gym for their physical fitness. It was surprisingly hard for me to talk about.

I think it's natural to assume that people only do really bad things because they are not in their right mind at the time; a "psychotic break" perhaps.  And I'm sure sometimes that is the case.  But it does seem like often it's a convenient way to Other, to dehumanise, to put the perpetrators of bad deeds at a distance from ourselves, so that we don't really have to explain or understand why. 

Via a Facebook friend I happened to stumble across this interesting blog post today, which included the timely quote:

Instead of examining what made it possible for [Anders] Breivik to unleash his barrage of racial hatred (he was vehemently against immigration by racialized bodies and supposed ‘takeover’ of Norway through this immigration’), he is excused and deemed insane, being sent to psychiatric care instead of prison. The explanation for his violence – he had a psychotic  ‘break’, a break from his normal civility and a break from an ordered society that would never breed such violence.

Never mind his high levels of planning and execution, never mind that he was actively a part of White supremacist organizations with similar views – White society is civilized and non-violent, so he must have been crazy. Madness is used here as a way of explaining away violence within White bodies and White society. It is not the norm, it is a break from it. 

And then there is this response to the Sandy Hooks shootings, and the leap to assume a role for mental illness there too, You Are Not Adam Lanza's Mother, including this:

The reality is that there is no such observed link: “after analysing a number of killers, Mullen concludes, ‘they had personality problems and were, to put it mildly, deeply troubled people.’ But he goes on to add: ‘Most perpetrators of autogenic massacres do not, however, appear to have active psychotic symptoms at the time and very few even have histories of prior contact with mental health services.’” And most people with mental illness are not violent, although they are far more likely to be victims of crime.. [their emphasis]

I don't really know how to finish this post other than to say it has been a difficult day.

---

I've just edited this, a few minutes after publication, to take out the picture and reference to some of the work the Mental Health Foundation is doing because I don't want to confuse things by writing about them in the same post.  Hope that makes sense.




*  This is my experience of mental illness, and it won't necessarily reflect how others with mental illnesses see their own experience.

faith & feminism

so back in july, chally at zero at the bone sent some questions on feminism & faith.  since they weren't easy questions and since i'm an ace procrastinator, i didn't get around to answering them til this month.  she has now put up my answers at her blog, so if you're interested, i'd recommend you go on over to her place to have a read.

i've closed comments on this post, because i think it's better that any comments are put up over there.

That awkward moment when someone asks me to sign the Family First Protect Marriage petition

I spied her clipboard from across the room, as she drew it slowly from her bag.   Noting the image across the top of the petition sheet, my heart sank.  It was the Family First Protect Marriage petition and it had no good purpose being anywhere near me.

"You'll sign this won't you?  To protect marriage!"

"Ah no, I've already signed the other one, the opposite one, in fact."

Shocked look.

"But, but, but, you're MARRIED!"

"Yes, and I think any two people who love each other should be able to marry.  Let's make it open to more people, and share the love."

"Oh."

We both found something else important to do elsewhere.

---

Opposite sex marriage is simply not under attack.  It doesn't need to be protected from same sex marriage at all.  Marriage is about a commitment between people* which has meaning for them.  What I might think about their marriage is irrelevant.  What happens in my marriage doesn't impact on anyone else's marriage, or civil union, in any way.  What does Family First think they are protecting marriage from?

Tonight a friend of mine, who happens to be gay, mentioned to me how he appreciated my support because this doesn't affect me.  In a way it is easier for me to be out there about my views, precisely because it is not about me;  there is no criticism of the way I live my life, of the person I am, in all the many awful arguments against marriage equality that I have seen.  I really feel for those out there who are on the frontlines of this in a way I am not; many of whom will not want to be even having a battle, and shouldn't have to be, to justify who they are.

There are many many people who support marriage equality, for reasons of justice and fairness, and just down right treating everyone as a full human being.  We should be making the world better than it was when we arrived, for those who come after, and marriage equality is one little way to help.

---

For those interested in the debate and vote on the first reading, estimates so far is that it is likely to occur at around 8pm Wednesday night.  There is a celebration rally going from Civic Square to Parliament tomorrow also, from 12noon.   There is a great deal of activity on Facebook in support of Louisa Wall's Bill too, not least longstanding group LegaliseLove, the adorable Can these otters holding hands get more fans than Protect Marriage NZ? (the answer is YES THEY CAN), and a range of pages showing that support is definitely not restricted to Pakeha queer atheists, but is rather more widespread than that: Tagata Pasifika for Marriage Equality, Christians for Marriage Equality Aotearoa NZ  and Straights for Marriage Equality in Aotearoa NZ (SMEANZ).

Currently the Bill looks likely to pass its first reading tomorrow night.  The process from there is that it goes to Select Committee for public submissions.  After that it gets a second and then a third and final reading in Parliament.  After the third reading it is officially law.



*  I'm pretty open-minded on the issue of polyamorous marriage.  I think it has had a bad reputation because it has most commonly been seen in societies where women do not have high status and has thus been a tool for oppressing women, but it doesn't have to be that way imho.  This is not really a post about that though.


Comment direction:  No hate in the comments thanks, plenty of other places on the interweb for that, sadly.  There have been a lot of amazing posts about this issue over the last few weeks, not least from my co-bloggers, so you may wish to share the ones that particularly appealed to you in comments :-)

Guestie: An eloquent explanation of benevolent sexism

A thought-provoking guest post by Sophie B.


Today someone on the internet asked me about 'benevolent sexism', and I was pleased by the opportunity to explain this concept with web links and studies to hand. I once tried to define it to a chivalrous acquaintance on a train, and by the time we reached our destination a guy near us had joined in and the rest of the men in our train car were quite openly eavesdropping. They all wanted to find out why I seemed so bizarrely against men being nice to me.

Benevolent sexism is a chivalrous attitude towards women which puts them on a pedestal and praises their performance of traditionally feminine roles. It seems to contrast with hostile sexism ("fuck bitches!"), but the two go hand-in-hand as a sort of punishment/reward system to keep women in their place.

Benevolent sexism reinforces gender roles just as much as hostile sexism, just more insidiously. It can seem to both the men who practice it and women like a sweet attitude, especially if we're used to the "fuck bitches" approach, but if you look at what is behind it, you find an ideology that supports gender inequality. Saying "Women are so good at childcare, men could never do that so well!" is easier to swallow than "Women should just focus on childcare while the men work", but they're both in the end saying the same thing in different ways. 

Most guys come at benevolent sexism with the best of intentions, because their point of reference is hostile sexism. Whenever I've talked to 'chivalrous' men about it, they ALWAYS ask me if I'd rather they stomped all over/disrespected women instead; I find it interesting that they see their only two options as benevolent and hostile sexism, and can't conceive of a non-sexist option.

Benevolent sexism is quite accepted by society, and seen as harmless, but it has documented detrimental effects on women. In the workplace it undermines women's confidence and performance, and informs their evaluation and treatment by men. It is one of the main contributors to the 'glass ceiling' effect. As one of the more subtle and socially acceptable forms of gender discrimination, it is definitely something to look out for.

Further reading
The studies referenced in this Wikipedia article are a good place to start

Marrying for social change

Homosexual law reform in the mid 1980s was hugely formative for me.  In my mid-early teens, it was the first time I realised I wasn't always going to agree with my brilliant father.

I was convinced consensual sexual activity between men should not be criminal.  Dad broadly agreed, but, like households all over Aotearoa, debate raged.  He "didn't know any gay men" and "didn't want to see New Zealand go too far."

I was yet to think about my (hetero)sexuality, or have any attractions to women that I called sexual.  But my out gay chemistry teacher was repeatedly verbally abused for "taking it up the arse" by some of my classmates, and his classroom defaced with spray-painted graffiti hate.

The pinnacle of the arguments between my father and I involved my asking him how he would feel if a male couple moved in next door, and we could see them kissing one another good-bye in the morning, in the same way my parents kissed each other good-bye, every morning.

Dad said that wouldn't be ok with him.  When I told him he was homophobic, he laughed and said "no, I'm not.  We wouldn't move."  My relationship with him changed, because I thought he was wrong and I found his views truly offensive.  Much as I continued (and continue) to love him.

The debate Aotearoa is about to have about Marriage Equality (and yes, that phrase is deliberate - everytime it gets called "gay marriage" we leave out trans people, lesbians and bisexual people) is going to be heated, make no mistake.

Queer people will have to listen to homophobes telling us there is something wrong with loving someone of the same gender, that "homosexual relationships" are not normal.  This will be painful and horrifying and dangerous for queer people in ways it will be difficult to describe to our straight friends.

I don't want to get married.  I don't want the state to have anything to do with who I share my bed with, or my life with.  I don't believe monogamous long-term relationships are "better" than other ways of loving.  For me, a relationship's worth comes from how the people involved treat one another, the room there is to grow and explore together and independently, the joy that comes from connection.

But I know that this Bill will make a difference for queer people in Aotearoa.  Just as Homosexual Law Reform did in 1986, the Human Rights Act in 1993, the Civil Union Bill in 2004.  We would not even be able to have this discussion, in 2012, about marriage equality without the activism that set the context for those earlier legislative changes.  Every time we have these debates and voices for increased equality win, the world becomes a little safer for queer people. 

But the debate itself won't be safe for us, which scares me.  Not for myself - I have a privileged - which should be an ordinary - existence as an out queer cis woman.  I have control over where I live, and who I live with.  My employers know my sexuality, so does my family and everywhere I volunteer and participate in activist work, and I am surrounded by beautiful, loving friends with all kinds of identities.

For that gay kid coming out in Te Awamutu, this debate will be terrifying.  For that closeted bisexual public servant, this debate will be painful.  For that lesbian who wants to leave the church and her husband with her children, this debate will be life-threatening.  For all of us who don't look like the gender norms we're supposed to, this debate will be dangerous.

Social change comes at a cost.  Activism isn't always easy, or safe.  Let's look after each other while conservative New Zealand tries to argue we're not the same as everyone else.  And let's remember this is just one step to respect, justice and equality - not the step.  We have more work to do yet.

Let me spell it out for you

Thank you, Google, for just so neatly encapsulating the reality of being bisexual in our world.  We don't exist.

If you type in gay, lesbian or transgender [or heterosexual or intersex] into a Google search box, Google Instant Search begins to auto-complete the search while making relevant suggestions. However when you begin to type in bisexual, there are no suggestions provided which lead many to believe there are no search results. Since 2010, Google has blocked the word bisexual from its auto complete and Instant Search features so users have to go an extra step to see the million of results related to bi people, bisexuality, bi community, bisexual resources and bi organizations.

Extraordinary, especially when you think about US research which suggests bi people have the highest rates of suicide ideation or attempted suicide amongst lesbians, gay men and heterosexual people - as a result of what the authors call "bisexual invisibility".

Needs to be added to the Monosexual Privilege Checklist:

37.  I know if I want to find something out about my sexuality, it will be as easy as typing the first three letters.

If the lack of existence of bisexuality bugs you, feel free to let Google know.  I have.

why do you need to wonder?

there's been a lot of coverage about the sky city worker who faced disciplinary action for carrying a bible around in her pocket.  bit of a silly decision by sky city to put her through the various meetings & create such a fuss.  surely it's not hard to figure out that a bible is not the same as a mobile phone or other bits & bobs a person has in their pocket.  as long as she wasn't preaching to anyone or reading during times she was supposed to be working, i really can't see what the problem is.

possibly because a bible might remind people of moral issues, which for some people might make them reconsider their decision to be gambling?  who knows.

but one thing i do want to point out is yet another gratuitous use of muslims.  this is not a story about muslims.  if you asked muslims in nz, i'd bet the majority of them would side would the worker in this case, and her right to carry her holy book with her.  and yet we still get dragged into the issue by one pastor mark nicholas:


A pastor to the casino worker facing disciplinary action for carrying a pocket Bible at work has questioned whether she would have met the same fate if she had been caught with a Koran....

Her pastor at Faith City Church, Mark Nicholas, said the Christian message was one of love and because of this, Parata may have been seen as a "soft target"

"I wonder what the response would have been if she was carrying another religious symbol - a Koran or something."

why do you need to wonder?  why is it even an issue?  let's put aside from the fact that a muslim who felt the need to carry a qur'an with them would not be working in a casino.  to say that the christian message one of love, and then to put out a very unloving implication in your next comment?  yeah i can think of a few words to describe that.  and i can also think of many christians who practice this love and who would never dream of implying what this particular pastor is implying.

the implication is that those who might carry a qur'an ( with an "or something" thrown in an attempt to sound a little less bigoted?) get some kind of special treatment.  we're oh so special, and nobody is allowed to complain about us, right?  except for regular letters to the editor in various papers - one of my favourites implying that what happened in norway is to be expected if you let muslims into your country.  except for any number of websites and books.  except for any number of comments on talkback radio.

[ETA: there is also the implication that the christian message is one of love, while other religions aren't.  again, why?  why do you need to say that, and to bring it in up when talking about this particular case of discrimination?  it's not relevant, it's not helpful, and from my own perspective, it's certainly not true.]

it makes me so very angry when some christians who face discrimination turn around and immediately discriminate against another religious group.  the fact is that if they took the trouble to ask, they'd find strong allies within that very group.  these issues of religious discrimination could be solved much more positively and quickly if we worked together, instead of playing oppression olympics, and trying to prove that somehow my discrimination is way worse than your discrimination.

and yes, i know that people who don't subscribe to any faith also face discrimination, and that too is wrong.  i'd be happy to support anyone in that situation as well.  there's no need for us to be pitted against each other.

moderating note:  i've turned comments off because i don't have the time or energy right now to deal with the kind of comments this post is likely to attract.  if you don't like what i've written, feel free to vent about it on your own blog.

It's time

Well actually, it's past time.  But now is still good.

If you want to vote on this poll, (screenshot above taken at 11am) it's at this Stuff article.

Care never comes free

Yesterday's Dominion Post reported that the Ministry of Health's senior lawyer, deputy solicitor-general Cheryl Gwyn, has told the Court of Appeal that paying parents to care for their disabled adult children could harm family relationships.

Avoiding commercialising the care relationship and not making families reliant on the caregiving income were "reasonable objectives of the ministry's policy not to pay family members to take care of disabled relatives...The core of the Health Ministry policy is to pay for filling the gaps in unpaid 'natural support' usually from family."

The Ministry of Health is appealing two earlier rulings, from the Human Rights Review Tribunal and the High Court, that the policy unjustifiably discriminates on the basis of family status. Some of the parents who took the original case are eligible for a domestic purposes benefit, but at least one is not eligible and another receives superannuation while caring for adult children.
Read the rest of the report here.

So - if you have children who are disabled, mentally, physically, or both, to such an extent that they require lifelong care, that is simply all part of the "natural support" parents can be expected to provide, without recompense - only in this case, it lasts for the rest of their lives.

If they meet the criteria for a welfare benefit, they will get one, but that's all. If they would or could not care for the child, someone else would of course have to be paid to do it. But the parents mustn't be paid - because that would risk harming family relationships???

Exactly what does the Ministry think paying parents would make them do? Refuse to let their adult child go to daycare groups (if there are any) so they can get paid more? Join a union and work to rule? Disable their children on purpose to get the money (just like all those young women who get pregnant "on purpose" to get the DPB?)

What the Ministry lawyers are really saying is that paying for care is too expensive. They're desperately trying to justify expecting family members to go on providing it "for free" or at best for a pittance, regardless of the burdens it imposes on them - including, for many, perpetual poverty. Only care is never free.

Of course both men and women care for adult children. The press report featured Cliff Robinson, 75, who has cared for his two intellectually disabled children, now in their 40s, for 36 years. But the fact that he doesn't get paid goes right back to the conviction that caregiving is what women do for free.

They exist to give whatever care is needed in return for nothing more than their bed and board, paid for by a husband or, if absolutely necessary, the state. It's what they're for. And any men who take on this role will be treated like women.

It could, of course, get worse. Maybe Health could join forces with Social Development to harry these parents (well, the ones under 65, anyway) out to work, along with all the other beneficiary parents whose kids turn 14 (because you can legally leave them home alone then, eh).

But this won't happen - well, not as long as parents don't get paid. Their care is not only the best, it's by far the cheapest.

An enabling alternative universe

30 November 2011


Dear Ms Mathers,

I'd like to extend my congratulations to you, and welcome you into your new role as a member of parliament. You will be aware that I have held the Speaker's role in the last parliament, a role which holds some responsibility in terms of parliamentary funding.

I am of course aware that you will be the first member of New Zealand's parliament with a hearing impairment, and would like to ascertain whether there is anything you will require in order to make your working environment here in parliament, and your ability to participate as a representative, work smoothly. This may also provide us with an opportunity to consider the many hearing impaired people in New Zealand's communities who may not always be able to access our democratic debates in progress, and I welcome your input and guidance in this area.

I am aware that if expenditure is required in order to ensure you can participate fully, the Speaker will possibly need to refer this decision to the appropriate committee. Fortunately, we are breaking over the Christmas period for several weeks, so if you were able to make us aware of your needs before this period, it's my expectation that we should be able to resolve any communication needs in a timely way to ensure in 2012 you will be able to participate fully.

Congratulations once again. I have been a member of parliament for a long time, and it continues to be an honour to represent our New Zealand communities.

Yours sincerely,

Lockwood Smith

the framing is damaging

[i wrote this post early last week, but ended up with a severe infection that meant i've been offline for several days. re comments: i'm leaving them open for now, but because i'm still not well, may turn them off because i don't have energy to deal with them. but please recognise that this is not an easy topic for me and my reaction to certain comments may not always be pleasant.]

it starts off with the story about a yound woman forced into marriage with threats of deportation and a bunch of lies, imprisoned in her husband's house for two months, and receiving death threats from her father. all of which is awful. this is a newsworthy story, it's important issues around forced marriage are brought to light, and the dominion post was the first to bring this particular story to light.

now there are issues around the framing of this story. it's presented as a pakistani story, when in effect it's a nz one. the issue isn't so much one of culture as it is of power and control. in other words, as was eloquently pointed out by a commentor on facebook (not me), the key factor is the desire to have power and control over the lives of women. the methods to exert such power and control may vary - but often not as much as you think. for example, threats of deportation and the withholding of passports is also a tool used by white men, as are death threats.

i found this comment at the end of the dom post article really troubling:

"It is not to say that the entire community acts this way, there will always be exceptions to the rule, but on the whole, women are given their place in society and in the family and as long as they adhere to that, they're fine.

"The minute they don't they face great odds to succeed or are deemed to have brought dishonour and shame to their families/communities and are ostracised or, in the worst case scenario, killed."

see, the exception to the rule is apparently the muslim families who don't force women into marriage, according to priyanca radhakrishnan (and yes this is the same priyanca whose experiences i shared on this blog and also asked the standard to do the same). or perhaps she means the whole ostracisation/dishonour thing. it's a little hard to tell.

but you know what? my experience is something quite different. yes, of course domestic violence exists in the muslim community. it exists in all communities. it's an issue that needs to be raised and discussed, which is one of the reasons why i dragged my sorry butt across the country - with a very capable partner - doing workshops with muslim women, the last of which was in auckland almost 2 weeks ago.

but i reject the notion that it is inherently more of a problem in muslim communities than in other communities. and i reject the notion that the vast majority of muslim women live in conditions as described by priyanca above, or that she has any right to generalise like that about women's lives based on the fact that her organisation gets to see the worst of society rather than the best of it. if we were to extrapolate nz women's living conditions from the state of our refuges, then i'm sure we could draw similar conclusions about nz culture. in fact, here's a canadian piece that makes some similar points (hattip to facebook).

the fact is nz has a huge issue with violence across the board, but that doesn't mean that, bar a few exceptions, nz women are subjugated. we should never diminish the importance of dealing with domestic violence and finding solutions. but i don't believe that we will find those solutions by generalising this way about a whole culture. as was really well pointed out on facebook (again, not me), this kind of framing helps to reinforce the stereotype of brown women as backwards and oppressed.

having to live with that stereotype is really restricting, and is almost certainly a factor in this: the double disadvantage that ethnic minority women face in attaining leadership roles. it can also lead to disadvantages in the health system as women of colour as seen as less capable, and their words are not taken as seriously (yes, i have concrete examples of this). it can lead difficulties in even getting a job. reinforcing that particular stereotype has costs.

i have raised this issue regarding shakti before. it's not a new concern for me, and i'm not partciularly interested in making personal attacks. it's an issue of concern that needs to be raised, because it not only affects the lives of all women of colour, it also affects the accessability of the service for women who need help.

well, following up on the dom post article was this one from the herald, which quotes the executive director of unicef. he felt the need to refer to this comment:

"It is an outrage that, under the cloak of respect for the culture and traditions of certain communities, there are authorities which tolerate forced marriages although they violate the fundamental rights of each and every victim.'

now i don't know about other countries, but there is no-one here in nz that i am aware of who is using the cloak of respect to tolerate forced marriage. if mr mckinlay believes that kind of thing is happening here, then i would ask him to name and shame any such people, because i'd be as much p*ssed off with them as the next person and would like to see them outed.

and if he knows that it is not true of nz, that neither the authorities nor any community leaders or community organisations are asking for forced marriages to be treated with respect, then he should plainly say so. but if he did say so, then that whole quote would actually be meaningless in a nz context and he wouldn't have need to point to it at all. leaving it as it is strongly gives the impression that there are people here who are pleading special treatment for this particular crime.

this is the point where i lost my cool in the facebook discussion, and i don't apologise for it at all. it's tiring and incredibly frustrating to have to continuously deal with this kind of framing, whether it's from an employee of the UN or from an organisation run by brown women for brown women. regardless of the fact that both organisations do incredibly good work, neither of them are above criticism.

as regards the actual issue around legislative change, i know i've done a post on this previously, discussin how existing nz law could be used to deal with these issues. the problem seems to be more with getting those laws working properly in the context of dowries and forced marriages. unfortunately i can't find that post at the moment, but if i do, i'll put up the link.

not quite so funny?

some anonymous person just posted a link to this clip on my blog, which i thought deserved to be shared more widely. it an interview with josie long about the discrimination she faces as a woman comedian:



i always find the "women aren't as funny as men" line quite telling. it's possibly because men are quite happy to laugh at male comics denigrating women, talking about their wives as irrational jailers who stop men from enjoying life at all. or any of the other sexist stuff that is supposed to be hilarious. but suddenly it isn't funny if a woman is doing something similar about men. they're not laughing so hard when it's their own foibles pushed out in nasty stereotypes for the entertainment of everyone.

surely if they find the one funny, they should find the other just as hilarious? but watching the audience reactions to female comics, the men are still laughing when the women talk about weight issues or how bitchy/slutty other women are, but quite a few barely manage a smile when she dares to turn her attention on to men.

so perhaps it isn't that the women aren't as funny, it's just that the man making that complaint just doesn't know how to laugh at jokes about his own demographic? could it be that this guy just needs to get a sense of humour?? or the better option is that they stop tolerating nasting shit about women that isn't actually all that funny either.

ARRRRRGH

There's some interesting - and worrying - news regarding employment for women in Christchurch in the aftermath of the earthquake:

...research showed female employees were hit hardest by job losses after the February 22 earthquake.
A Ministry of Women's Affairs study found women accounted for 70 per cent of job losses in the city. Women made up 90 per cent of the 12,600 jobs lost in the retail and accommodation industries.
Meanwhile, just one in 10 of the 4500 construction jobs created in Christchurch last year were filled by women

Why this this interesting and worrying? Because of the effect on women? Because women are under-represented in growing industries? Because it may indicate that women are being discriminated against when it come to dismissals?

Ahaha no. No.  It's because it's leading to a woman drought, silly.

A FUCKING WOMAN DROUGHT.

Oh, but wait, there's more. Not only are there less women for men to choose from, the quality of them has diminished, because women from university age to thirties are the first to leave. Not only that, "the girls stopped making as much effort with their appearance. They obviously didn't have to try as hard."

So nice to know we've got our priorities sorted.

how is that my fault exactly?

one of the most common things i hear, which is the flipside to "this is MY country, so you have to do everything MY way", is the old "but in THEIR countries we're not allowed to do XYZ, so why should THEY get to do ABC here".

the most offensive thing about the second statement: is the pretty strong implication that nz can never be the country of someone who has chosen to live here. if someone talking to me starts a sentence with "but in your country (countries)", i'm very likely to interrupt them with "listen f**ckface, your next sentence better be about nz, because that's the ONLY country i belong to". well no, i won't say exactly that, it'll probably be a politer variant.

but there's a deeper injustice going on here. just because some random country has some horrific sh*t happening to some of its citizens is not a reason to deny me rights in this country. it's likely i've never been in that country, i certainly don't have voting rights in that country and it might be a country that doesn't even have democracy. it's also likely that i totally disagree with what's happening in that country in the same way that you do. in fact, it's also very likely that a good number of the population of said country also object to the stuff happening there, hence arab spring for example.

so given all of that, why should i be denied any of the rights available to any other citizen in nz, when i have absolutely no connection to nor responsibility for stuff that's happening somewhere else in the world? and yet you hear it on talkback radio, in letters to the editor, on facebook and most other forums you could name.

there's yet another layer of nastiness involved in this kind statement. lets say i do come from one of those countries where some particular human rights abuse is happening. aside from the fact that this may be exactly why i've chosen to leave that country, there's a strong element of revenge involved here. in other words, what the speaker is effectively saying is "some people i identify with are being treated badly in your country of origin. therefore, i seek revenge by at least denying you some basic rights in this country". it's a tit-for-tat type sentiment that is not only unjust, but is plain ugly.

it's without any kind of sense or logic, and yet adult people are using this argument all the time. i don't get how they can't immediately see the sheer stupidity of it.

why not?

"shouldn't be pandering to minorities"

i can't count the number of times i've heard that phrase, and it still makes me sick. let's deconstruct it. what it actually means is that a party shouldn't devise policy and have messages that appeal to minority groups. because minority groups aren't important. they don't count. if you're going to try to appeal to them at all, do it very quietly. so quietly that everyone else can pretend they don't exist and know that they don't matter. their concerns don't matter. their lived experiences and needs don't matter.

if they have needs, nobody should have to hear about them and no-one should be advocating for them. no policies should be implemented that benefit minority groups, because that is clearly "pandering".

more than that, the phrase is used every single time someone from a minority group is selected for a significant position. they can't possibly be selected for their talents and abilities. they can't have been chosen by a process that is genuinely able to look past minority characteristics at actual ability.

and what if it's true that a person has been selected specifically to appeal to a minority group? i really can't see what's wrong with that. minority groups deserved to be courted and appealed as much as majority group. why don't they? and why should the majority be offended by that? it's not a zero-sum game. it's not like addressing the needs of minority groups is going to lead to less for the majority. it is almost certain that policies benefitting minority groups will benefit the whole, particularly in the long term.

seriously, who is going to suffer if maori life expectancy begins to equal that of pakeha? who is going to miss out if women get paid the same as men? no-one at all. but any moves to iron out inequality is "pandering", even though that inequality is causing unneccessary and unfair distress to a significant number of people.

frankly, i'm sick of it. sick of the phrase and the ideas that underpin it.